Bull v. Bell
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL IN' EQUITY EROM THE RACINE CIRCUIT COURT. This was a bill for specific performance, to wbicb Alexander Bell, Lemuel B. Miller, Seth S. Norris, and Nancy Norris, bis wife, were made parties.
Read the full summary
APPEAL IN' EQUITY EROM THE RACINE CIRCUIT COURT. This was a bill for specific performance, to wbicb Alexander Bell, Lemuel B. Miller, Seth S. Norris, and Nancy Norris, bis wife, were made parties. The bill set forth an agreement between Seth H. Norris, and Nancy, his wife, of the first part, Daniel Slauson of the second part, and George Bull of the other (third) part, made the 9th day of May, 1853, by which the parties of the first and second part agreed to sell and convey by good and sufficient deed, all of certain premises, particularly described therein, subject to a lease to John Horton,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
CoLR, J.
The first question presented for our consideration in this case, is one of practice. It is insisted by the counsel for the appellant, that the Circuit Court erred in proceeding to a hearing of the case upon the merits before the demurrer had been disposed of, and section 20, chapter 84 of the Revised Statutes, is relied upon to sustain this position. That section provides that, “If the defendant file a demurrer and answer, the complainant shall not proceed on the answer till the demurrer has been argued or disposed of.” It is a very familiar rule, we suppose, of chancery…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Work v. WelshIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Lamoreux v. HuntleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Diamond Lumber Co. v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1921